QA's Package update policy proposal

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 07:38:44PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:12:41 -0800, Adam wrote:
> 
> > Please provide details on what's mad about Kamil's proposal.
> 
> Here:
> 
> | The package updates must spend at least 14 days [1] in the
> | 'updates-testing' repository, or at least 7 days [1] provided they have
> | karma of at least 3 [1] and no negative feedback. Only after that the
> | package maintainer may submit them to the 'updates' repository.
> 
> Even under consideration of [1], it's the same system that doesn't work
> for me and won't work for me.
> 
> Under some circumstances it would be justified to overrule negative
> feedback even. E.g. if it's a user who just wants to block a good update
> because of his pet peeve.
>
Mentioned in the Talk: page here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_talk:Kparal/Proposal:Package_update_policy#Responsibilities

kparal acknowledges that it's something like he envisions although I didn't
confirm that that means he agrees with the text in the box or just the UI
design.

I'd rather see all accepted criticism moved to the main page so that we know
what ideas are currently in play in the current proposal but I'm not the
page author so everyone has a different style of writing up drafts.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100309/d1325fec/attachment.bin